CAR_Public/140721.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 143

                             Headlines


4 S ELECTRICAL: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
AIDELLS SAUSAGE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Suit Claims
B ROBERTS FOODS: Recalls Misbranded Grilled Chicken Product
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Set Aside Ruling Denied
CANON U.S.A.: Faces "Ho" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Defective Printers

CENTRO RESTAURANT: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CIELO INC: Has Refused to Pay Overtime Hours, "Maury" Suit Claims
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court OKs Bid for Fees and Costs in ERISA Suit
COLORADO: Court Certifies Class in "Decoteau" Action
COVIDIEN PLC: Faces "Taxman" Suit Over Sale to Medtronic

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Dist. Court Dismisses "Dimond" Class Action
DAYORIS LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
DOLPHIN LAUNDRY: Faces "Fuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ENVOY AIR: "Ferris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EXPEDIA INC: Emerson Poynter Files Class Action Over App

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Appeals Court Reverses Certification Ruling
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Propane Price Fixing
FINISAR CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits Pending
FORD MOTOR: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Axle Class Action
GOLD COAST: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

GOLDEN GATE: "Gray" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Sued in N.Y. Over False Marketing Scheme
JEEP: Customers Mull Class Action Over Botched Car Competition
JOY SIANG: "Cipriano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Tosses Mortgage Interest Rate Class Action

JTH HOLDING: ERC Litigation in Early Procedural Stage
JTH HOLDING: Plaintiff in TCPA Litigation Seeks Certification
LAUDERHILL AUTO: "Mejia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
LIONS GATE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.

MANPOWER INC: Obtains Summary Judgment vs. "Ramirez" in Wage Suit
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Ex-Minor League Players Sue Over Wages
MARS FOOD: Recalls UNCLE BEN'S(R) READY RICE(R) Product
MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "McCloud" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MINNESOTA: Scope Defined in "Karsjens" Suit Evidentiary Hearing

NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Defective Engines
NEW JERSEY INSTALLATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PFIZER INC: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in Securities Suit
PNC BANK: Faces "Meagher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RADIOSHACK CORP: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Wage Suit

REDEMPTORISTS ORDER: Sex Abuse Victims Obtain Favorable Ruling
REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.
RESTAURANT.COM INC: Judge Tosses Consumer Class Action
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $2.1MM
SERVICES EMPLOYEES: Wins Truck Drivers' Class Action Arbitration

SMARTHEAT INC: Discovery to Proceed in Federal Securities Lawsuit
SONY CORPORATION: Defendant in Customer Identity Theft Complaints
STAAR SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
SUNRISE MEDICAL: "Purizaga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SYMANTEC CORP: September 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

TOWER LEGAL: "Vassallo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VIEGA LLC: Settles Class Action Over Defective Brass Fittings
XEROX CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Hill" Suit Rejected
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Chewies Cookies Due to Tree Nuts


                            *********


4 S ELECTRICAL: Does Not Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Patricio Moncayo-Nieto, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. 4 S Electrical
Co., Inc.; Light the Power, Ltd., and Benjamin I. Garneata,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05267 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

4 S Electrical Co., Inc. and Light the Power, Ltd., are
electricity utility providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


AIDELLS SAUSAGE: Falsely Marketed Food Products, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Marise Epstein, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aidells Sausage Company, Inc., a foreign
corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80916 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for the false and misleading
material statements and representations regarding the Chicken
Sausage food products as "All Natural".

Aidells Sausage Company, Inc., is the owner, manufacturer and
distributor of the Aidells Chicken Sausage food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN P.A.
      1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (832) 715-2788
      Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
      E-mail: howardr@pdq.net

          - and -

      Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq.
      THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM P.A.
      5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
      Davie, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: JEggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com


B ROBERTS FOODS: Recalls Misbranded Grilled Chicken Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
B. Roberts Foods, a Charlotte, N.C., establishment, is recalling
approximately 202 pounds of individual serving grilled chicken
entr‚es due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.  The product contains milk, a known allergen,
which is not declared on the product label.

The following product is subject to recall:

    10 oz. (248 g) Refrigerated Packages of "Harris Teeter, Fresh
Foods Market, Deli-Bakery, All Natural Grilled Chicken Strips
(minimally processed, no artificial ingredients)"

The top label on the packaging incorrectly reads "All Natural
Grilled Chicken Strips (minimally processed, no artificial
ingredients), Net Wt 10 oz. (248g)" and the bottom label
incorrectly reads "Grilled Chicken Breast with Lemon Spaghettini"
when both labels should read  "Grilled Chicken Breast with
Sundried Tomato Pasta." The product was produced on July 10, 2014,
and bears the establishment number "Est. 19198" inside the USDA
mark of inspection with package code "50223" and "Sell By" date of
"07/27/14".

The product was distributed to retail stores in Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia and Washington, D.C.

The problem was discovered by a grocery store employee who saw
that the product was incorrectly labeled. The grocery store
reported the error to B. Roberts Foods, which confirmed the
"Grilled Chicken Breast with Sundried Tomato Pasta" entr‚es were
incorrectly labeled due to an employee error. In addition to the
incorrect labels, the recalled product is made with milk, which is
a known allergen and must be noted on the label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Antonio Gilges at (704) 944-5311 or via email at
agilges@brobertsfoods.com.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Set Aside Ruling Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant denied a motion to set aside a
magistrate judge's March 18, 2014 order in the case captioned
BETTY GUZMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-69-BAS(WVG), (S.D. California.
July 10, 2014.

Betty Guzman commenced this putative class action on January 12,
2011, against Defendants Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Ashford
University, and University of the Rockies, asserting claims for
violations of California's Unfair Trade Practices Act, False
Advertising Act, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, among others.
These claims arise from the allegations that Defendants
disseminated false and misleading information regarding, among
other things, the true costs of attendance, the transferability of
credits, the quality of the education, and the prospects of post-
graduation employment.

Despite meet-and-confer efforts, the parties were unable to
resolve discovery disputes without court intervention. As a
result, the Plaintiff submitted to the magistrate judge a Joint
Statement for Determination of Discovery Disputes, specifically
requesting an order compelling further responses to Interrogatory
No. 7 and Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 16.  The magistrate
judge denied Plaintiff's motion to compel as untimely on March 18,
2014. The Plaintiff moved for the Court to set aside the
magistrate judge's March 18, 2014 order.

Judge Bashant found that the magistrate judge's March 18, 2014 was
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.  Consequently, the
Court need not address Plaintiff's request to compel further
responses to Interrogatory No. 7 and RFPs Nos. 11 and 16, he
added.  A copy of Judge Bashant's Order is available at
http://is.gd/NpeFf9from Leagle.com.

Betty Guzman, Plaintiff, represented by Francis A. Bottini --
fbottini@bottinilaw.com -- Bottini & Bottini, Inc. & Yury
Kolesnikov -- ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com -- Bottini & Bottini,
Inc..

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Young -- christopher.young@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US, Karen
S Chen -- karen.chen@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP & Noah A
Katsell -- noah.katsell@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.

Ashford University, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Young, DLA Piper US, Karen S Chen, DLA Piper US LLP & Noah A
Katsell, DLA Piper LLP.


CANON U.S.A.: Faces "Ho" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over Defective Printers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Ho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04255 (E.D.N.Y., July 10,
2014), arises from defective printers manufactured, marketed and
sold by Canon.

Canon U.S.A., Inc., is a Japanese corporation that designs,
manufactures, and/or distributes consumer electronics products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Harwood, Esq.
      Peter W. Overs Jr., Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER, LLP
      488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
      E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
              povers@hfesq.com

         - and -

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kennedy, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre, 361 West Lancaster Ave.
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
              jbk@chimicles.com


CENTRO RESTAURANT: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Gonzalez v. Centro Restaurant Group, LLC, Joseph
Immordino, and George Karalis, individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-
04331 (D.N.J., July 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Centro Restaurant Group, LLC, is engaged in restaurant business
throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road Bldg. 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
              JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


CIELO INC: Has Refused to Pay Overtime Hours, "Maury" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Maury, Miguel Campos and Andres Pinon on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cielo, Inc.,
Ricardo Sarabia Martinez, Sr. and Ricardo Sarabia Martinez, Jr.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-01925 (D. Colo., July 10, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants refused to pay hourly employees overtime wages for
hours worked beyond 40 each workweek.

Cielo, Inc., is a Mexican restaurant owned by Ricardo Sarabia
Martinez, Sr. and Ricardo Sarabia Martinez, Jr.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Powers Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 440-8780
      Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
      E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Court OKs Bid for Fees and Costs in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in IN RE COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. ERISA LITIGATION, MASTER
FILE NO. 07-CV-9515, (S.D. N.Y.) on October 9, 2013, moved for
preliminary approval of a $45.9 million class action settlement.
The Court granted preliminary approval on December 16, 2013, and
notice of the settlement and a fairness hearing was sent to class
members. On April 4, 2014, the Court held a fairness hearing. No
objections to the settlement were filed, and no objectors appeared
at the hearing. By separate order, the Court approved the
settlement as fair and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).

The Plaintiffs now move for fees and costs to be paid out of the
settlement fund pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h).
The requested attorneys' fee is 25% of the fund or $11,475,000.
Plaintiffs also move for costs of $591,011.17 and fee awards of
$5,000 for each of the Plaintiffs for their participation in the
litigation.

In an order and opinion dated July 8, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/7VKK8efrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Lorna G. Schofield granted the Plaintiffs' motion.

Paul Caufield, Plaintiff, represented by T. J. Smith, Douglas R.
Sprong -- dsprong@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC, Edward
W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP & Eli Gottesdiener -- eli@gottesdienerlaw.com -- Gottesdiener
Law Firm, PLLC.

Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan,
Defendant, represented by Brandi T. Johnson --
bjohnson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jeffrey
A. Sturgeon -- jsturgeon@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld -- jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Joseph J. Costello --
jcostello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Theresa
J. Chung -- jchung@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


COLORADO: Court Certifies Class in "Decoteau" Action
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martinez granted a motion for class
certification in the case captioned RYAN DECOTEAU, ANTHONY GOMEZ,
and DOMINIC DURAN, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity
as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Corrections, and TRAVIS TRANI, in his official capacity as the
Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary and Centennial
Correctional Facility, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-3399-
WJM-KMT, (D. Col.).  The Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
cases was denied.

Plaintiffs Ryan Decoteau, Anthony Gomez, and Dominic Duran brought
this action on behalf of themselves and all other inmates who are
currently or have previously been incarcerated at the Colorado
State Penitentiary (CSP) against Defendants Rick Raemisch and
Travis Trani, the Executive Director and Warden of the
Penitentiary.  The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' policy of
denying outdoor exercise to all inmates housed in administrative
segregation at CSP violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishment.  The Plaintiffs seek an injunction
requiring Defendants to comply with the Eighth Amendment by
providing regular access to outdoor exercise.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify the class defined as:
"All inmates who are now or will in the future be housed in
administrative segregation at the Colorado State Penitentiary and
who are now or will in the future be subjected to the policy and
practice of refusing to provide such inmates access to outdoor
exercise."

A copy of the District Court's July 10, 2014 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/n92kRCfrom Leagle.com.


COVIDIEN PLC: Faces "Taxman" Suit Over Sale to Medtronic
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taxman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Covidien PLC, Medtronic, Inc., Kalani I Limited,
Makani II Limited, Aviation Acquisition Co., Inc., Aviation Merger
Sub, LLC, Jose E. Almeida, Joy A. Amundson, Craig Arnold, Robert
H. Brust, Christopher J. Coughlin, Randall J. Hogan, III, Dennis
H. Reilley, Stephen H. Rusckowski and Joseph A. Zaccagnino, Case
No. 1:14-cv-12949 (D. Mass., July 10, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the
efforts to complete the sale of the Company to Medtronic, pursuant
to an unfair process and for an unfair price.

Covidien PLC, develops, manufactures and sells a diverse range of
industry-leading medical device and supply products.

Medtronic, Inc., headquartered in Minneapolis, is the world's
largest medical technology company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, CROSS AND MANDELCORN, LLP
      110 Cedar St.
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Telephone: (781) 431-2231
      Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
      E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Dist. Court Dismisses "Dimond" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Dimond brought a class action individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, alleging that certain restaurants
of Darden Restaurants, Inc. have violated two New York City rules
and regulations, as well as Section 349 of New York State's
General Business Law, by imposing an 18% gratuity on customers'
bills and by failing to list the purchase price of certain
beverages on the restaurants' menus. Defendants moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC), claiming that it fails
to state a claim of relief and that Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue one of his claims.

"Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim as to Defendants' 18%
gratuity charge, the Court dismisses Count I of the FAC," ruled
District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in an opinion and order dated
July 9, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/MM6njP
from Leagle.com. "Similarly, because Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue a cause of action regarding Defendants' unlisted beverage
prices, and because he fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted in any event, the Court dismisses Count II of the
FAC."

According to Judge Failla, the Plaintiff has provided no
indication as to how he would amend the FAC so as to cure it of
the deficiencies identified in this Opinion. Indeed, Plaintiff
includes only one sentence requesting leave to amend, stating
nothing more on this subject. The Court also notes that Plaintiff
has amended his complaint three times since this action was
removed to this Court. It goes without saying that he has had
ample opportunity to perfect his pleading, yet has failed to do
so. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide any factual detail or
evidence as to the proposed amendments on which the Court could
assess their futility, and because allowing Plaintiff to amend his
complaint yet another time may prejudice Defendants, the Court
will not grant Plaintiff's request to amend.

The case is TED DIMOND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., et
al., Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 5244 (KPF), (S.D. N.Y.).

Ted Dimond, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Spencer --
Evan@EvanSpencerEsq.com -- Evan Spencer Attorney At Law, Jeffrey
G. Smith -- smith@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP, Pablo Esteban Bustos, Parks and Crump LLC & Robert
Abrams -- abrams@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP.

Darden Restaurants, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald Leonard
Maatman, Jr. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gina
Renee Merrill -- gmerrill@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jason
Stiehl -- jstiehl@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Lorie
Elizabeth Almon -- lalmon@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

GMRI, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gina Renee Merrill, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jason
Stiehl, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Lorie Elizabeth Almon, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP.

Red Lobster, Defendant, represented by Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gina Renee Merrill, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jason
Stiehl, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Lorie Elizabeth Almon, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP.

Darden Concepts, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald Leonard
Maatman, Jr, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Gina Renee Merrill, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, Jason Stiehl, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Lorie Elizabeth Almon,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


DAYORIS LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Perez De La Osa v. Dayoris, LLC., Dan V. Benitah,
individually, and Scott Kucine, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
22561 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dayoris, LLC, specializes in modern and contemporary doors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road Bldg. 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
              JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


DOLPHIN LAUNDRY: Faces "Fuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Fuentes, Anai Bustamante, Miguel Melquiades, Elvira
Vazquez, Octavio Diego, Vanessa Lopez, Francisca Benitez, Victoria
Benitez, Juan Liendo, Martha Lopez, Patricia Morones, Patricia
Martinez, Nelida Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Dolphin Laundry
Services, Inc., and John R. Meyer, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05287 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Dolphin Laundry Services, Inc., provides laundry services located
at 1080 Entry Drive, Bensenville, IL 60106.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


ENVOY AIR: "Ferris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ferris, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Envoy Air, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00761 (E.D. Tex.,
July 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Envoy Air, Inc., is an air carrier based in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harry Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
      BOB WHITEHURST
      102 N College, Suite 808
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Telephone: (903) 593-5588
      Facsimile: (214) 853-9382
      E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com


EXPEDIA INC: Emerson Poynter Files Class Action Over App
--------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP disclosed that it filed, on July 11, 2014, a
class action lawsuit against Expedia, Inc. on behalf of consumers
who purchased online airfares from Expedia on the Expedia website
and/or the Expedia App and who were charged a higher baggage fee
than Expedia represented at the time of the online purchase and/or
were denied all or part of a 5% discount on online purchases using
the Expedia App.

Expedia and its subsidiaries provide travel products and services
(including online airfare sales through its Expedia.com United
States website) to travelers in the United States and abroad as
well as various media and advertising offerings to travel and non-
travel advertisers.  These travel products and services are
offered through a diversified portfolio of brands including:
Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Expedia Affiliate Network,
Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Expert, Egencia, Expedia
CruiseShipCenters, eLong, Inc., Venere Net SpA and trivago GmbH.

If you have booked online travel through websites or Apps with
Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Expedia Affiliate Network,
Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Expert, Egencia, Expedia
CruiseShipCenters, eLong, Inc., Venere Net SpA and trivago GmbH,
or any other online travel website and have been unfairly charged
fees of any kind and/or have not received discounts that were
advertised on such websites or in an such Apps, then please
contact Emerson Poynter LLP.

Emerson Poynter LLP -- http://www.emersonpoynter.com-- has a
national and international class action legal practice with
offices in Houston, Texas and Little Rock, Arkansas.  Emerson
Poynter handles complex commercial litigation with a concentration
on large consumer cases that involve violations of federal and
state laws.  The Firm has substantial experience in litigating
large complex class-action cases and serves in a leadership
position in numerous cases.

CONTACT: John G. Emerson, Esq.
         Emerson Poynter LLP
         830 Apollo Lane
         Houston, TX 77058
         Tel: 281-488-8854
         Fax: 281-488-8867
         Call Toll Free: 800-663-9817
         E-mail: epllp@emersonpoynter.com


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Appeals Court Reverses Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 8-K dated June 26, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2014, Federal
Signal Corporation announced that the First District Illinois
Appellate Court issued an opinion in the Company's favor reversing
a Cook County trial court's previous certification of a class
action comprised of firefighters who allege the Company's sirens
caused them hearing loss.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/uJzrII

Federal Signal Corporation designs and manufactures a suite of
products and integrated solutions for municipal, governmental,
industrial and commercial customers. The Company operates in three
segments: Safety and Security Systems, Fire Rescue and
Environmental Solutions. The Company's portfolio of products
includes safety and security systems, vacuum loader vehicles,
street sweepers, truck mounted aerial platforms, waterblasters,
and technology-based products and solutions for the public safety
market. As of December 31, 2012, it operated 11 manufacturing
facilities in six countries around the world serving customers in
approximately 100 countries globally. On September 4, 2012, 3M
Company acquired the business of Federal Signal Technologies Group
(FSTech) from the Company.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Propane Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Venezia, Michael S. Harvey, Gregory Ludvigsen, Arthur Hull,
and Alan Rockwell, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited
partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership d/b/a Blue
Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, and
Amerigas Propane, L.P., a limited partnership d/b/a AmeriGas
Cylinder Exchange, and Amerigas Propane, INC., a corporation, Case
No. 3:14-cv-03141 (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2014), alleges unlawful
conduct of fixing the price of propane exchange tanks.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Amerigas Partners, L.P. are the two
largest suppliers in the United States of standardized, prefilled
portable steel tanks, commonly referred to as "propane exchange
tanks," to retail outlets, including home improvement stores,
hardware stores, mass merchandisers, supermarkets, convenience
stores and gas stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brooks E. Harlow, Esq.
      LUKAS, NACE, GUTIERREZ & SACHS, LLP
      8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1200
      McLean, VA 22101
      Telephone: (703) 584-8678
      Facsimile: (703) 584-8694
      E-mail: bharlow@fcclaw.com


FINISAR CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation reported that the lead plaintiffs' appeal of
the District Court's dismissal ruling on the securities class
action lawsuits against the Company, is pending, Form 10-K filed
on June 26, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2014.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To
date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged. The cases
were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs
leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company
filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2013,
the District Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's dismissal ruling,
and the appeal is pending.

Finisar Corporation (Finisar) is a provider of optical subsystems
and components that are used in data communication and
telecommunication applications. The Company's optical subsystems
consist primarily of transmitters, receivers, transceivers,
transponders and active optical cables that provide the
fundamental optical-electrical, or optoelectronic, interface for
interconnecting the electronic equipment used in building
communication networks, including the switches, routers and
servers used in wireline networks as well as the antennas and base
stations for wireless networks. The Company supplies optical
transceivers and transponders that allow point-to-point
communications on a fiber using a single specified wavelength
that, bundled with multiplexing technologies, can be used to
supply multi- gigabytes per second bandwidth over several
wavelengths on the same fiber.


FORD MOTOR: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Axle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge handed Ford Motor Co. a win on July 10 in
a proposed class action alleging the company violated consumer
protection laws by selling Windstar minivans with defective rear
axles, finding the problems could have been caused by normal wear
and tear.

In granting a motion from Ford for summary judgment, U.S. District
Judge Philip S. Gutierrez rejected plaintiffs' claims that they
would not have purchased a Windstar minivan if Ford had disclosed
the vehicle's rear axles were prone to failure due to metal
fatigue.

"Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence showing that they
suffered a cognizable injury traceable to Ford's allegedly
wrongful conduct," Judge Gutierrez said.  "As a result, no jury
could reasonably render a verdict in their favor, and summary
judgment must be granted."

The plaintiffs had not demonstrated any evidence to show the
problems with rear axles in Windstars were the result of a design
defect and not from the normal, expected wearing down of car parts
over time, Judge Gutierrez said.

The suit was originally filed on behalf of Jenelle Ford, who
purchased a used 1999 model Windstar minivan in 2001.  The
complaint alleges Ford Windstar minivans manufactured between 1998
and 2003 were defectively designed, and that susceptibility to
metal fatigue caused premature wear and failure in the vans' rear
axles.

In August 2010, Ford announced a recall of Windstar model years
from 1998 to 2003 due to the defect in the rear axle after
receiving notice from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that an investigation revealed a defect.

Judge Gutierrez rejected arguments from plaintiffs that the recall
of Windstar minivans by Ford, wherein the company replaced axles
on Windstar minivans with more than 150,000 miles, proved the
company intentionally concealed a design defect.

"The court is not persuaded that the scope of Ford's recall
constitutes relevant evidence regarding the useful life of the
Windstar rear axle," Judge Gutierrez said, adding that Ford may
have replaced the axles to maintain customer confidence or avoid
litigation.  "Standing alone, this evidence is not enough to
create a genuine dispute of material fact."

The plaintiffs failed to inquire about the expected service life
and expected maintenance and repair costs of the Windstar minivan
when they purchased it, instead purchasing the vehicle based on
other considerations such as cargo space and passenger seating
without performing any independent research, Judge Gutierrez said.

Ford characterized the case as a "copycat class action," arguing
identical claims had already been fully litigated in a proposed
class action in Pennsylvania, according to court filings.

In 2013 a Pennsylvania federal judge refused to grant class
certification in a case involving similar claims accusing Ford of
trying to cover up a defective rear axle in its Windstar minivans.

That suit, filed in May 2010, claimed Ford expressly warranted
that the Windstar was free from defects and yet failed to disclose
a known defect in the vehicle.  The action alleged that the rear
axle was prone to damage because it was designed in a way that
traps water and other corrosive agents, which causes the axle to
rust and ultimately crack.

That case was later dismissed in 2013, according to court dockets.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gillian L. Wade and Stephanie
Mazepa of Milstein Adelman LLP and Ruben Honik and Kevin Fay of
Golomb & Honik PC.

The defendants are represented by Joan S. Dinsmore --
jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP and Tamara A.
Bush -- tbush@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

The case is Jenelle Ford, et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al., case
number 2:13-cv-08335, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


GOLD COAST: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oswaldo Silva, Jr., on his own behalf and others similarly
situated v. Gold Coast Management Services, Inc. and Peter
Sorrentino, Case No. 0:14-cv-61583 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid straight time and overtime compensation
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gold Coast Management Services, Inc. is a property management
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Lynne Kronengold, Esq.
      Alan David Danz, Esq.
      DANZ & KRONENGOLD P.L.
      10620 Griffin Road, Suite 201
      Cooper City, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 530-9245
      Facsimile: (954) 616-5738
      E-mail: kronengold@danzlaw.net
              danz@danzlaw.net


GOLDEN GATE: "Gray" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granted final approval of a
settlement in the class action captioned LORI GRAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-00511, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the
July 10, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/mqVPpPfrom
Leagle.com.

The Court found the Agreement, in all respects, fair, adequate,
and reasonable to all potential class members.

The Settlement Agreement was reached as the result of intensive,
prolonged, serious and non-collusive arm's-length negotiations,
including several settlement sessions supervised by Magistrate
Judge Jacqueline S. Corley.

Lori Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis --
lparadis@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights Advocates, Christine
Chuang -- cchuang@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights Advocates &
Stuart John Seaborn -- sseaborn@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights
Advocates.

Peter Mendoza, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis,
Disability Rights Advocates, Christine Chuang, Disability Rights
Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn, Disability Rights Advocates.

Ann Sieck, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis,
Disability Rights Advocates, Christine Chuang, Disability Rights
Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn, Disability Rights Advocates.

Marc Sutton, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis,
Disability Rights Advocates, Christine Chuang, Disability Rights
Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn, Disability Rights Advocates.

California Council of the Blind, Plaintiff, represented by
Laurence Wayne Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates, Christine
Chuang, Disability Rights Advocates & Stuart John Seaborn,
Disability Rights Advocates.

Golden Gate National Recreational Area, Defendant, represented by
Brian G Kennedy, USDJ - Civil Division & Jonathan Gordon Cooper,
Department of Justice.

National Park Service, Defendant, represented by Brian G Kennedy,
USDJ - Civil Division & Jonathan Gordon Cooper, Department of
Justice.


INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Sued in N.Y. Over False Marketing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Grabovan, and Daniel Oglander, as individuals, and on behalf
of other persons similarly situated v. International Culinary
Center LLC, a New York Domestic Limited Liability Company, The
International Culinary Center Of California, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, Dorothy Hamilton, an
individual, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05147 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2014), arises from the Defendants
fraudulent marketing scheme that the educational programs offered
worth the $45,000-plus cost allows graduates to immediately gain a
high-tier and well-paying culinary position.

International Culinary Center LLC and The International Culinary
Center of California, LLC, operate for-profit, non-degree
granting, culinary schools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell M. Yarfkwitt, Esq.
      Kathy S. Marks, Esq.
      YANKWITT LLP
      140 Grand Street, Suite 501
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914)686-1500
      Facsimile: (914)801-4930

       - and -

      Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
      Patrick V. Chesney, Esq.
      GALLO LLP
      1299 Fourth Street, Suite 505
      San Rafael, CA 94901
      Telephone: (415)257-8800


JEEP: Customers Mull Class Action Over Botched Car Competition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Robb, writing for SmartCompany, reports that customers
have ripped into Jeep over a botched competition held on July 10,
labelling its contest to buy a cheap Jeep "unfair" and threatening
to take legal action against the car company.

With angry customers increasingly turning to social media to vent
their frustrations, the luxury car brand found its Facebook wall
awash with complaints and threats for a class action lawsuit after
the incident on July 10.

At 9:00 a.m. on July 10, Jeep's "The World's Most Remote
Dealership" promotion had intended to reveal to customers a phone
number they could ring to be the first to buy one of 10 Jeep
Cherokees for just $10,000, according to Mumbrella.

The cars, which normally retail for around $30,000, caught the eye
of around 50,000 customers who signed up for the competition
before July 10.

Jeep had not anticipated users may not be watching the countdown
timer from a smartphone, and as customers waited for the clock to
tick over to 9:00 a.m., many of them did so from a tablet.

When the clock ticked over, revealing the location of Jeep's
remote dealership and prompting customers to use a 'call now'
button with the competition hotline number, tablet users couldn't
use the calling function.  But problems had arisen long before
9:00 a.m., according to angry customers on Whirlpool.

The countdown time was apparently set by the current time on the
device and when it reached zero (9:00 a.m. device time) it would
check in with the server and show the location and phone number.

So if users set the time on their device forward, they had an
unfair advantage of gaining the information before everyone else.

Whirlpool users also suggested that some people got the 'ok-to-
show' on their phones 12 hours early due to a server problem or
even because of a leak from Jeep.

Users without GPS also claimed to be further disadvantaged, as the
app demanded the use of GPS tracking to proceed when the time
ticked over.

Jeep's Facebook page was inundated with angry posts, currently at
just over 900, calling on the company to re-run the completion and
calling it's a "farce" and a "scam".

A Jeep Fiasco Class Action Lawsuit Facebook group also popped up,
currently with just under 400 members, as well as a webpage
dedicated to signing up for the class action.

One commenter said they had also written to the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission about the case.

Jeep responded to the furore, but did not suggest it would look at
re-running the competition or investigate what went wrong.

"Wow! Thanks Australia for your amazing participation in 'The
World's Most Remote Dealership' promotion.  We can see that some
of you are disappointed -- there were over 30,000 calls made this
morning for the chance to buy just 10 vehicles," said a Facebook
post from the company.

"Once we had confirmed our 10 buyers, we updated all our social
media channels that the promotion was now over. We also closed the
phone lines, as we thought this would indicate all the cars were
gone! Sorry if this confused some of you."

"We love your passion for Jeep; stay tuned for more exciting and
unique promotions and offers."

Michelle Gamble from Marketing Angels told SmartCompany while Jeep
likely has its own legal advice on whether or not it has to re-run
the competition, it has to deal with the fact the contest
backfired and left disgruntled fans.

"If something does go wrong, I would look at some kind of
consolation to those affected, rather than saying, 'bad luck',"
says Ms. Gamble.

"Jeep should use the opportunity to create some goodwill with some
of the customers who are upset, and were obviously fans of the
brand," she says.

Ms. Gamble says any small businesses considering running a
competition should firstly look into whether or not they need a
permit from the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.

"If it's a game of chance you need a permit," says Ms. Gamble.

While the laws differ from state to state and are dependent on the
prize value, Ms. Gamble says even Facebook competitions have to
comply with these regulations.

"The second caution would be that you need to do a dry run with
these things," says Ms. Gamble.  "With anything involving
technology, test it beforehand."


JOY SIANG: "Cipriano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Cipriano, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. John Doe Inc., Joy Siang Restaurant Inc., (d/b/a Joy
Siang Garden) Shan Jie Chen and Zhi Thao Chen, Case No. 1:14-cv-
04241 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

John Doe Inc. and Joy Siang Restaurant Inc., are Chinese
restaurants owned by Shan Jie Chen and Zhi Thao Chen located at
41-21 National Street, Corona, New York 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES
      60 East 42nd St, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: lfranco@faillacelaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Tosses Mortgage Interest Rate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on July 10 tossed a
proposed class action accusing JPMorgan Chase Bank NA of
defrauding homeowners into paying higher interest rates on their
mortgages, finding the bank's disclosures regarding the loans did
not violate any laws.

U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt dismissed plaintiffs Barbara
Schramm and Steven Weinstein's claim that the bank violated
California's Unfair Competition Law following a March trial.  He
ruled that they couldn't prove the bank's practices violated the
unlawful, fraudulent, or unfair prongs of the UCL.

The plaintiffs had claimed that Chase's loan disclosures were
unlawful because the bank did not comply with Truth In Lending Act
and Federal Reserve System Board's Regulation Z requirements that
it expressly disclose the fact that its initial interest rates
were not based on any index and could be higher than the sum of
the index and the margin.

Chase's disclosures failed to conform to the Federal Reserve
Board's model form for two principal reasons, the plaintiffs said.
First, the disclosures allegedly failed to inform consumers that
"the index plus margin would be adjusted by the amount of any
'premium.'"

"This argument is premised on plaintiffs' understanding that the
initial interest rate would be based on the sum of an index plus
margin.  They contend that, although the disclosure informed them
that their initial interest rate might be less than this sum, they
were not informed that the interest rate could be greater than
this sum," the judge said.

Second, he said the plaintiffs contended that the disclosure
placed the statement "Your initial interest rate may be discounted
and will not be tied to the index" under the heading "How Your
Interest Rate Can Change" instead of, as in the model form, under
the heading "How Your Interest Rate is Calculated."

"Neither argument is persuasive," Judge Kronstadt said.  "As a
preliminary matter, there is no requirement under Regulation Z
that defendants state how the initial interest rate is
calculated."

He said nothing in the regulation requires that Chase state
whether the initial interest rate may be discounted or based on a
premium, either.

Chase was required to disclose that the initial interest rate is
not based on the same formula as subsequent interest rates, and
the judge said it specifically stated in its disclosures that the
rate is not tied to the index.

Judge Kronstadt also found the plaintiffs couldn't prove Chase's
disclosures were fraudulent.

"A review of the disclosure forms does not show that a reasonable
consumer would have been led to believe that the initial interest
rate would be calculated based on the sum of the applicable index
and a margin," the judge said.

And he similarly rejected Schramm and Weinstein's claim that the
disclosures were unfair.  He said the plaintiffs did not provide
any evidence to support a claim that the bank's disclosures
"threaten to violate the letter, policy, or spirit of the
antitrust laws, or that it harms competition."

The plaintiffs are represented by Craig M. Collins, Gary Ho --
ho@blumcollins.com -- and Steven A. Blum -- Blum@blumcollins.com
-- of Blum Collins LLP.

Chase is represented by David L. Schrader --
dschrader@morganlewis.com -- and Joseph Duffy --
jduffy@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and
Jonathan S. Massey, Leonard A. Gail and Matt J. Reedy of Massey &
Gail LLP.

The case is Barbara L. Schramm et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et
al., case number 2:09-cv-09442, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


JTH HOLDING: ERC Litigation in Early Procedural Stage
-----------------------------------------------------
JTH Holding, Inc., disclosed that a purported consolidated class
action complaint alleging violations of state-specific RAL and
other consumer statutes in connection with the Company's refund
transfer products formerly called electronic refund checks, is in
the early procedural stage, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed on June 26, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2014.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and Minnesota. In April 2012, a motion to consolidate
all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in federal
court in the Northern District of Illinois was granted, and in
June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the
consolidated action. The consolidated complaint alleges that our
refund transfer products formerly called electronic refund checks
("ERC") represent a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL")
because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that
the refund transfer product is, therefore, subject to federal
truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating
RALs. The plaintiffs, therefore, allege violations of state-
specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The lawsuit purports to
be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege potential damages in
excess of $5.0 million, but we may be able to recover any damages
from the providers of the financial products that designed the
programs and related disclosures. The Company is aware that
virtually identical lawsuits have been filed against several of
its competitors. The Company has not concluded that a loss related
to this matter is probable, nor has the Company accrued a loss
contingency related to this matter. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and intends to
defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to
the outcome or the impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations, and cash flows. The case is at an
early procedural stage.

JTH Holding, Inc. (JTH Holding) is a holding company engaged
through its subsidiaries as a franchisor and operator of a system
of income tax preparation offices located in the United States and
Canada. The Company is a retail preparer of individual tax
returns. JTH Holding's principal operations are conducted through
its subsidiary, JTH Tax, Inc. (JTH Tax). Through this system of
income tax preparation offices, JTH Holding also facilitates to
its customer refund-based tax settlement financial products, such
as refund anticipation loans, electronic refund checks, and
personal income tax refund discounting. On September 30, 2010, JTH
Tax entered into an Agreement of Merger and Plan of Reorganization
with JTH Holding. At the closing of the merger on September 30,
2010, JTH Tax merged with and became a wholly owned subsidiary of
JTH Holding.


JTH HOLDING: Plaintiff in TCPA Litigation Seeks Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
JTH Holding, Inc., is a defendant in a complaint alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in which the
plaintiff seeks the certification of a nationwide class action,
Form 10-K filed on June 26, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2014.

The Company was sued in September 2013 in federal court in
Illinois in connection with alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges that the Company
inappropriately made autodialed telephone calls to cellular
telephones, seeks the certification of a nationwide class action,
and claims statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation. The
Company tendered the defense of this litigation to a third party
entity that had contracted with the Company to solicit potential
franchisees, and that third party entity has acknowledged its
defense and indemnification obligations to the Company. However,
because the third party contractor does not have the financial
resources to satisfy its defense and indemnity obligations, the
Company recently concluded that it cannot rely fully upon the
fulfillment of those obligations. The Company has not concluded
that a loss related to this matter is probable nor has the Company
accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. The Company
intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no
assurances as to the outcome or the impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash
flows. The case is at an early procedural stage.

The Company is also party to claims and lawsuits that are
considered to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to the
business, including claims and lawsuits concerning the preparation
of customers' income tax returns, the fees charged to customers
for various products and services, relationships with franchisees,
intellectual property disputes, employment matters, and contract
disputes. Although the Company cannot provide assurance that it
will ultimately prevail in each instance, the Company believes the
amount, if any, it will be required to pay in the discharge of
liabilities or settlements in these claims will not have a
material adverse impact on its consolidated results of operations
or financial position.

JTH Holding, Inc. (JTH Holding) is a holding company engaged
through its subsidiaries as a franchisor and operator of a system
of income tax preparation offices located in the United States and
Canada. The Company is a retail preparer of individual tax
returns. JTH Holding's principal operations are conducted through
its subsidiary, JTH Tax, Inc. (JTH Tax). Through this system of
income tax preparation offices, JTH Holding also facilitates to
its customer refund-based tax settlement financial products, such
as refund anticipation loans, electronic refund checks, and
personal income tax refund discounting. On September 30, 2010, JTH
Tax entered into an Agreement of Merger and Plan of Reorganization
with JTH Holding. At the closing of the merger on September 30,
2010, JTH Tax merged with and became a wholly owned subsidiary of
JTH Holding.


LAUDERHILL AUTO: "Mejia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Mejia v. Lauderhill Auto Investors I, LLC. d/b/a Phil Smith
Chevrolet, Philip P. Smith, individually, and Emilio Redondo,
individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61587 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lauderhill Auto Investors I, LLC, is a car dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road Bldg. 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
              JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


LEXISNEXIS RISK: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott D. Feinstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lexisnexis Risk Solutions Inc., a Georgia
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 3:14-cv-01635 (S.D.
Cal., July 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by refusing to
conduct any reinvestigation after a consumer disputes the accuracy
of information in Motor Vehicle Reports that it provides to
insurance companies.

Lexisnexis Risk Solutions Inc., provides products and services to
insurers that help them assess risk and streamline the insurance
underwriting process.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Richard Patterson, Esq.
      Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
      PATTERSON LAW GROUP APC
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6990
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
              ali@pattersonlawgroup.com


LIONS GATE: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 11 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.
common stock between February 11, 2013 through March 13, 2014,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 11, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/lionsgate/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Lionsgate is a film studio that produces and distributes motion
pictures, television, home and family entertainment, and digital
media.  The complaint alleges that by the start of the Class
Period, and unbeknownst to investors, Lionsgate was under
investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") for making false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning a series of transactions ("Transactions") designed to
prevent a takeover of the Company by Carl Icahn and his affiliates
("Icahn").  During the Class Period, however, Lionsgate and the
other defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
existence of the SEC investigation, the prospect of legal
proceedings associated with the misconduct under investigation,
and the Company's exposure to loss in connection therewith.

Beginning in or about March 2010, Icahn commenced a series of
tender offers intended to facilitate his takeover of the Company
by increasing his ownership interest in Lionsgate and allowing him
to designate his chosen representatives to the Company's board of
directors ("Board").  Threatened by the possibility of losing
control of the Company or being replaced, Lionsgate's management
and Board sought to block Icahn's plans.  On July 20, 2010, the
Board -- with management's assistance -- approved and facilitated
the Transactions, which resulted in placing over 16 million shares
of common stock in the hands of director Mark Rachesky and/or
entities he controlled ("Rachesky") while diluting the interests
of other Lionsgate shareholders, including Icahn.  Mr. Rachesky
was a staunch supporter of Lionsgate management and the Board.

Thereafter, Lionsgate publicly represented that the Transactions
were "a key part of the Company's previously announced plan to
reduce its total debt, as well as its nearer term maturities." In
fact, the SEC found, Lionsgate had not announced any such debt-
reduction plan.  Moreover, Lionsgate failed to adequately disclose
the true purpose of the Transactions: to stifle Icahn's takeover
attempts.  Following the public announcement of the Transactions,
Lionsgate continued to misrepresent their true purpose to
investors.

On March 13, 2014, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-
Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order ("Order"), which memorialized the resolution of the
investigation and charges against Lionsgate for making false and
misleading disclosures regarding the Transactions.  As detailed in
the Order, and alleged in the complaint, Lionsgate settled the
investigation by, among other things, agreeing to pay $7.5 million
in fines and acknowledging that it had violated the federal
securities laws.

The issuance of the Order exposed Lionsgate's false and misleading
representations and omissions during the Class Period.
Specifically, Lionsgate repeatedly represented that it had
disclosed all material legal proceedings, when, in fact, it failed
to disclose the existence of the SEC investigation and its
material risk and exposure to loss.  Accordingly, Lionsgate's
public statements regarding its involvement in and exposure to
claims and legal proceedings were false and materially misleading
when made, and otherwise omitted material information.  Indeed,
Lionsgate and the other defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that the existence of the SEC's investigation exposed the Company
to material risks and uncertainties and exposure to loss,
including regulatory proceedings, sanctions and fines.

In response to the publication of the Order on March 13, 2014, the
price of Lionsgate common stock declined as the market digested
the truth regarding the Company's exposure, thereby damaging
investors.  In the lawsuit filed on July 11, the plaintiff seeks
to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Lionsgate common
stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has extensive expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and other matters involving financial
fraud.

With more than 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest jury verdict ever in a securities class action.


MANPOWER INC: Obtains Summary Judgment vs. "Ramirez" in Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a motion for summary
judgment in PATRICIA RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated employees Plaintiff, v. MANPOWER, INC.,
MANPOWERGROUP PUBLIC SECTOR INC., MANPOWERGROUP US INC., MANPOWER,
INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, and DOES 4 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-02880-BLF, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Patricia Ramirez was employed by a temporary services
employment agency, Manpower Inc./California Peninsula (MI/CP), for
three days in January 2013. She brings this putative class action
against MI/CP and against three other entities, Manpower, Inc.
(MPI), Manpowergroup Public Sector Inc. (MPSI), and Manpowergroup
US Inc. (MPUS"). Her operative second amended complaint (SAC)
asserts various state labor code violations pertaining to
Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages for orientation,
training, and assessment meetings.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of judicial
estoppel and lack of standing. Separately, Defendants moved to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Additionally, two individual members of the putative class sought
to intervene in the action as additional named plaintiffs.

On the basis of judicial estoppels, Judge Freeman granted the
motion for summary judgment, and denied the motion to intervene.
The motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

A copy of the July 10, 2014 rulingis available at
http://is.gd/6SeDabfrom Leagle.com.

Patricia Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Bernard James
Fitzpatrick -- bfitzpatrick@fandslegal.com -- Fitzpatrick Spini &
Swanston, Charles Swanston -- cswanston@fandslegal.com --
Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E Cameron --
dcameron@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Patrick
Darryn Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley
PC.

Manpower, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Kane --
mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Michael Ross Phillips
-- mphillips@mcguirewoods.com --  McGuireWoods LLP, Sabrina Alexis
Beldner -- sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Sylvia
Jihae Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com --  McGuire Woods LLP.

Manpowergroup Public Sector Inc.,, Defendant, represented by
Matthew C. Kane, McGuireWoods LLP, Michael Ross Phillips,
McGuireWoods LLP, Sabrina Alexis Beldner, McGuireWoods LLP &
Sylvia Jihae Kim, McGuire Woods LLP.

Manpowergroup US Inc.,, Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Kane,
McGuireWoods LLP, Michael Ross Phillips, McGuireWoods LLP, Sabrina
Alexis Beldner, McGuireWoods LLP & Sylvia Jihae Kim, McGuire Woods
LLP.

Manpower Inc. / California Peninsula, Defendant, represented by
Michael Ross Phillips, McGuireWoods LLP & Sabrina Alexis Beldner,
McGuireWoods LLP.

Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Barbara I.
Antonucci -- bantonucci@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Ex-Minor League Players Sue Over Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Aaron Senne and former minor
league players in each of the 30 big league organizations are
suing Major League Baseball, alleging violations of federal wage
and overtime laws in a case some legal observers suggest has
significant merit.  They are seeking class-action status on behalf
of the estimated 6,000 ballplayers who toil each summer in
outposts stretching from Bluefield, Virginia, to Bakersfield,
California, as well as an unspecified amount of back pay.

Like many young baseball players, Mr. Senne dreamed of fame and
fortune when he signed his first contract as a Miami Marlins'
draft choice after a record-breaking college career at Missouri.

Reality as a low-level minor leaguer was far different: vending
machine dinners, bug-infested apartments and a paltry salary with
an equivalent hourly wage less than what fast-food workers make.

"You come from high school or college where you're not making
anything and you just think, 'I'm getting paid to play baseball.
I'll chase my dream,'" said Mr. Senne, who retired last year after
having Tommy John surgery on his elbow in 2011, one year after the
Marlins paid him a $25,000 signing bonus as a 10th round pick.
"You get that first paycheck and you do a double take.  It's an
eye opener."

In Mr. Senne's case, that first check from the Jamestown (N.Y.)
Jammers, a short-season Class A affiliate, was for $1,100 a month
and $25 a day in meal money.  At his peak, he earned $7,000 in
2012, but like all minor leaguers, wasn't paid salary during
spring training or for his offseason conditioning work.

Federal antitrust exemptions have largely protected pro baseball
from comparable legal challenges.  But in this case, the 32
plaintiffs recruited by attorney Garrett Broshuis -- another
former minor leaguer from Mizzou who went to law school after six
seasons in the San Francisco Giants' organization -- allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, a 1938 law that
stipulates a minimum wage for workers and requires overtime for
most employees who work more than 40 hours weekly.

The suit was filed earlier this year in federal court in San
Francisco, though Major League Baseball wants to move the suit to
Florida, where most of its teams spend spring training and courts
are considered more employer-friendly.

"Yes, these guys are chasing a dream," said Mr. Broshuis,
acknowledging that short-term sacrifices can become distant
memories should a big league contract be attained, which carries
the promise of a $500,000 minimum salary while on the 25-man major
league roster or disabled list.  "But it's also a job.  And it's a
job they put a lot of hours in."

Attorneys representing Major League Baseball in the California
case did not respond to interview requests, and a spokesman in the
league's New York office declined comment.  In a 78-page response
to the suit, the league and Commissioner Bud Selig outlined 30
objections, including an exemption under the federal wage law for
"seasonal, amusement or recreational" workers and a contractual
requirement that workplace disputes must first go to arbitration
before courts intervene.

University of New Hampshire law professor Michael McCann, director
of the school's Sports and Entertainment Law Institute, notes that
most minor league salaries fall far below the federal poverty
level of $11,670 for a single person and $23,850 for a family of
four.  Nor do minor leaguers have the power of a union to advocate
on their behalf.

"Maybe for a 19- or 20-year-old, that's all right," Mr. McCann
said of the typical minor-league contract.  "For a guy who's 28
years old with a family, I don't see how there's enough money to
pay the bills."

He said the lawsuit makes a "credible argument," but noted that
MLB has yet to offer a detailed response.

Mr. Broshuis attributed the disconnect between the idealized
version of paying one's dues in the minors and his actual
experience as his primary motivation for pursuing a legal career.
Drafted by the Giants in 2004 and out of baseball five years later
after a few stints in Triple-A, he was valedictorian of his law
school class at Saint Louis University.

"Very early in my career, I realized that something just didn't
seem quite right," he said. Compared to college, "it almost seemed
like a step down in working conditions. It seemed backward."

Mr. Senne was one of three original plaintiffs in a case that was
set to be back in court earlier this month.  He said the suit is a
long-overdue challenge to a management mindset that embraced
financial sacrifice as a necessary rite of passage.

For players who voiced their concerns, the response from coaches
and managers was uniform, he said.

"They would say, 'If you don't like it, play better,'" Mr. Senne
said.  "'Or go get a 9-to-5 job.'"


MARS FOOD: Recalls UNCLE BEN'S(R) READY RICE(R) Product
-------------------------------------------------------
Mars Food North America is voluntarily recalling two Lot Codes of
UNCLE BEN'S(R) READY RICE(R) Garden Vegetable with Peas, Carrots &
Corn pouch product, representing less than 2,000 cases. Some
pouches in these lot codes were filled with a different product
that contains barley, a non-wheat source of gluten, which is not
declared on the product packaging.

This action relates only to UNCLE BEN'S(R) READY RICE(R) Garden
Vegetable with Peas, Carrots & Corn pouch products with a "Best
Before Date 06/15 MADE IN CANADA" with either of these Lot Codes
printed on the package:

    422GBBFP1L OR 422GBBFP1R
    423AABFP1L OR 423AABFP1R

No other Lot Codes, or any other UNCLE BEN'S(R) Brand products,
are involved in this action. No Mars Foodservices products are
involved in this action.

Only these specific lot codes are impacted. The product should be
returned to where it was purchased.

   PRODUCT                      LOT CODE           ITEM NO.
   -------                      --------           --------
UNCLE BEN'S(R) READY RICE(R)  422GBBFP1[L or R]     U03234
Garden Vegetable with Peas,   423AABFP1[L or R]
Carrots & Corn pouch

Mars Food North America is conducting this voluntary recall
because of an undeclared inclusion of barley, a non-wheat source
of gluten, as a result of some pouches in these lot codes being
filled with a different product. We have not received any reports
of illness associated with this product, but we are voluntarily
recalling this product out of an abundance of caution.

No other UNCLE BEN'S(R) Brand products, including Mars
Foodservices products, are involved in this action.

Our No. 1 goal is to provide our customers and consumers with the
highest quality products possible. For more information or
assistance, please contact us toll free at 1-800-548-6253. (Monday
to Friday, 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST) or via our website at
www.mars.com.


MCCLINTON ENERGY: Faces "McCloud" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laron McCloud, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C. and Jaycar Energy
Group, L.L.C. d/b/a  Jaycar Frac Plugs, Case No. 5:14-cv-00620
(W.D. Tex., July 10, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C. and Jaycar Energy Group, L.L.C.
provide equipment and services to customers in the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com


MINNESOTA: Scope Defined in "Karsjens" Suit Evidentiary Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank issued an order on July 10, 2014,
defining the purpose and scope of the July 14 and 15, 2014
evidentiary hearing in the case captioned Kevin Scott Karsjens,
David Leroy Gamble, Jr., Kevin John DeVillion, Peter Gerard
Lonergan, James Matthew Noyer, Sr., James John Rud, James Allen
Barber, Craig Allen Bolte, Dennis Richard Steiner, Kaine Joseph
Braun, Christopher John Thuringer, Kenny S. Daywitt, Bradley Wayne
Foster, Brian K. Hausfeld, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Lucinda Jesson, Dennis Benson, Kevin Moser, Tom
Lundquist, Nancy Johnston, Jannine H‚bert, and Ann Zimmerman, in
their individual and official capacities, Defendants.  E.T.,
Petitioner, v. Lucinda Jesson, Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, Respondent.  R.B., Petitioner, v.
Lucinda Jesson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, Respondent, CIVIL NOS. 11-3659 (DWF/JJK), 14-2002
(DWF/JJK), 14-2362 (DWF/JJK), (D. Minn.).

The case came before the Court on the Defendants' Motion in Limine
for an Order Defining the Purpose and Scope of the July 14 and 15
Evidentiary Hearing.

In Judge Frank's order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/L1gaEAfrom Leagle.com, he said the Defendants'
Motion in Limine is granted in part.

"The evidentiary hearing scheduled for July 14 and 15, 2014, is
limited in scope to evidence relating to the opinions of all
individuals, including the Rule 706 experts, who have issued
reports or filed affidavits on E.T. and R.B in relation to the
Karsjens Section 1983 action," held Judge Frank.  "The evidence
received at this hearing can be used, if relevant, to evaluate the
class action claims in the Karsjens Section 1983 action. The Court
reserves the right to preserve the evidence insofar as it may
pertain to the habeas matters.

Following the testimony, the Court will hear argument from counsel
in the Karsjens Section 1983 action on Plaintiffs' Motion for the
Creation of an Aftercare Plan for E.T. Pursuant to Minn. Stat.
Section 253D.35, and separately will hear argument from the
parties on the two habeas petitions in Civ. No. 14-2002 and Civ.
No. 14-2362, including any argument on the exhaustion issues."

"At the hearing, the Court would also like an update from counsel
regarding E.T.'s July 2, 2014 SRB hearing, and an update on the
current status of E.T. and R.B.'s residence and living situation.
Counsel should also be prepared to discuss modifying the schedule
in the Karsjens Section 1983 action."


NAVISTAR INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Defective Engines
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Selbin of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on July 10 disclosed that three
trucking companies that purchased vehicles in California,
Illinois, and Washington state filed a nationwide class action
lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation.  The
complaint, filed on July 9 in federal court in Illinois, alleges
that Navistar actively concealed that its 2008-2013 model trucks
were equipped with diesel engines -- the Maxxforce Advanced EGR
diesel engines -- that contained a defective emission system that
caused the trucks to suddenly break down.

"The problems with these engines have cost buyers and lessees --
including many small, family-owned businesses -- thousands of
dollars," stated Mr. Selbin.  "In some cases, the unexpected
mechanical problems endangered owners' ability to earn a living.
The lawsuit seeks to hold Navistar responsible for the quality of
its engines and ensure that buyers and lessees of Navistar trucks
get what they paid for."

Defective Navistar Truck Lawsuit Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Maxxforce Engine is defective and
the alleged defects lead to repeated failures, well before
completion of its intended and expected useful life, requiring
costly repairs often at the expense of owners and lessees.
Further, when the trucks were brought in for repairs during the
warranty period, Navistar didn't properly repair the emission
system and instead replaced them with another equally defective
failure-prone system.

The complaint alleges that the defect rendered the Maxxforce
Engines unreasonably dangerous at the time the Navistar trucks
were purchased.  The defect can and has led to sudden breakdowns,
forcing trucks, often heavily loaded with cargo, to attempt
emergency maneuvers, such as pulling to the side of the road.  The
defect also causes coolant and exhaust fumes to enter the
passenger compartment of the Navistar trucks, causing risks of
driver poisoning from the fumes.

Proposed Class

The proposed class consists of all current and former purchasers
and lessees of 2008-2013 model year Navistar vehicles nationwide
equipped with Maxxforce Advanced EGR diesel Engines.  Navistar
sold trucks containing the defective Maxxforce Engines under its
International brand name, including the following models:

1. International Prostar and Lonestar, which are heavy duty, long
haul tractor trailer trucks;

2. International Transtar, a heavy duty, regional haul truck;

3. International Workstar and Paystar, severe duty trucks used for
construction applications (for example as dump trucks); and

4. International Loadstar, a severe duty cab forward truck used
for various applications, including as garbage trucks and airplane
refueling trucks.

All of the Trucks are U.S. Department of Transportation Class 7
and 8 trucks, the largest, heaviest, and most powerful trucks on
the road.

Contact Plaintiffs' Counsel

Owners and lessees of Navistar trucks containing Maxxforce Engines
are welcome to contact a Lieff Cabraser attorney and report their
experience with these engines.  We will review your claim for free
and with no obligation on your part.  Please contact us online or
call us toll-free at 1 866 313-1973 and ask to speak to attorney
Mark Chalos in our Nashville office.

                    About Lieff Cabraser

Described by The American Lawyer as "one of the nation's premier
plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- has successfully litigated and
settled hundreds of class action lawsuits in federal and state
courts, including dozens of cases requiring manufacturers to
remedy a defect, extend warranties, and refund to purchasers the
cost of repairing the defective product.  With sixty-plus
attorneys in offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, it
is among the largest law firms in the United States that represent
only plaintiffs.


NEW JERSEY INSTALLATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rosato, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. New Jersey Installations LLC, N Jersey Interiors LLC,
John Doe Corporations 1-20, and Anthony Martino, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05136 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
prevailing wages and unpaid overtime wages.

New Jersey Installations LLC and N Jersey Interiors LLC, offer a
full range of services including furniture delivery, installation,
reconfiguration, refurnishing, restoration and reupholster, full
carpet cleaning services, and onsite service, maintenance and
repairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC. LTD.
      110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718)799-9111
      Facsimile: (718)799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


PFIZER INC: Wins Summary Judgment Ruling in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied a motion for leave to
submit an amended supplemental expert report in IN RE PFIZER INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, NOS. 5-MD-1688-LTS, 4-CV-9866-LTS-HBP,
(S.D. N.Y.).  The ruling relates to the Consolidated Securities
Class Action.

In her July 8, 2014 memorandum order, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/9rBnM0from Leagle.com, Judge Swain held that the
Plaintiffs' motion to for leave to amend their damages expert
report is denied, and the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
is granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate docket
entries 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 522, 523, 526, 533,
541, 545, 547, 549, 551, 553, 555, 556, 562, and 566 and to enter
judgment in Defendants' favor in the following member cases of
consolidated action 04-CV-9866-LTS-HBP and multidistrict
litigation 05-MD-1688: 04-CV-9866-LTS-HBP, 04-CV-9967-LTS, 04-CV-
10001-LTS, 04-CV-10071-LTS-HBP, 04-CV-10075-LTS, 04-CV-10085-LTS,
04-CV-10096-LTS, 04-CV-10098-LTS, 04-CV-100118-LTS, 04-CV-10141-
LTS, 04-CV-10224-LTS, 04-CV-10257-LTS, 04-CV-10296-LTS, 05-CV-
00051-LTS, 05-CV-0125-LTS, 05-CV-0735, 05-CV-0983-LTS, 05-CV-1308-
LTS, 05-CV-1920-LTS, 05-CV-2017-LTS, 05-CV-2076-LTS, 05-CV-2510-
LTS, 05-CV-2874-LTS, 05-CV-5715-LTS, 05-CV-5716-LTS, 05-CV-5717-
LTS, 05-CV-5719-LTS, 05-CV-5720-LTS, 05-CV-5721-LTS, 05-CV-6327-
LTS, and 12-CV-4536-LTS.

Philip Morabito, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick Taylor
Isquith, Sr. -- isquith@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory Arthur Markel --
greg.markel@cwt.com -- Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP & Jason
Michael Halper -- jason.halper@cwt.com -- Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft LLP.

Henry A. McKinnel, Defendant, represented by Gregory Arthur
Markel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP & Jason Michael Halper,
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.


PNC BANK: Faces "Meagher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Meagher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PNC Bank, National Association, A National Banking
Association, Case No. 4:14-cv-00454 (E.D. Tex., July 10, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PNC Bank, National Association, is a bank with branches in
multiple states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VERDERAME, Plaintiff, v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-2539, (E.D. Penn.), involves a putative
class action alleging that RadioShack Corporation's use of the
"fluctuating workweek" method for calculating overtime violates
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), 43 P.S. Section 333.101-
115.

In a July 10, 2014 memorandum opinion, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/ITLVRJfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Mitchell S. Goldberg granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.  The Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings was denied. Additionally, Defendant's Motion to Strike
was denied as moot.

According to Judge Goldberg, RadioShack has been compensating
Plaintiff using the fluctuating workweek method as set forth in 29
C.F.R. Section 778.114. While this method of compensation may be
lawful under the baseline federal regulation, the same cannot be
said as it applies to the more employee-friendly Pennsylvania
regulation. "Upon a reading of the plain regulatory language of 34
Pa.Code Section 231.43(d)(3), I hold that RadioShack violated the
PMWA by not compensating Plaintiff for overtime at "1 1/2 times"
the basic rate as set forth in their compensation plan," he
concluded.

DAVID VERDERAME, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by PAUL J. LUKAS -- lukas@nka.com
-- NICHOLS KASTER PLLP, PETER D. WINEBRAKE --
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC, TIM C.
SELANDER -- selander@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER & ANDERSON PLLP &
R. ANDREW SANTILLO, WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC.

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DANIEL B. HUYETT
-- dbh@stevenslee.com -- STEVENS & LEE, JAMES S. MCNEILL --
jmcneill@mckennalong.com -- MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP & JULIE E.
RAVIS -- jera@stevenslee.com STEVENS & LEE, P.C..


REDEMPTORISTS ORDER: Sex Abuse Victims Obtain Favorable Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that in a landmark class-action lawsuit, a
Quebec judge has awarded up to $150,000 each in damages to victims
who were sexually abused by priests.

The case involves at least 70 male students at the St. Alphonse
Seminary, a boys' school run by the Redemptorists Order in
St. Anne de Beaupre near Quebec City until it closed in 1987.
The former students, represented in the class-action by Frank
Tremblay, attended the school, now called St. Alphonse College,
between 1960 and 1987.

Superior Court Judge Claude Bouchard says it is 'inconceivable'
that the religious order did nothing to stop the abuse by nine
priests over nearly three decades.  Six of those priests have
since passed away.  All had taken a vow of poverty.

The congregation will have to pay up if the accused aren't able
to, said Pierre Boivin, one of the crown prosecutors.  The victims
suffered stress, shame, addiction and relationship issues.  At
least one man committed suicide.  The total damages could range
between $11 million and $20 million.  It's not yet known if the
Redemptorists will appeal.


REGADO BIOSCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 10 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Regado Biosciences, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, and docketed under 14-cv-04345-JAP-
DEA, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased Regado securities between August 22, 2013 and
July 9, 2014, inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Regado securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 8, 2014 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Regado is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
discovery and development of antithrombotic drug systems for acute
and sub-acute cardiovascular and other indications.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or materially misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance.  Specifically, during the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the danger and frequency of
allergic reactions experienced by subjects in the REG1 Phase 3
trial were significant enough to derail the trial; (ii) the
allergic reactions were of such a serious nature and/or frequency
that the Data Safety Monitoring Board ("DSMB") and FDA would
ultimately be required to place the clinical trial on hold; and
(iii) and as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 3, 2014, the Company announced that the DSMB overseeing
the REG1 clinical trial commenced an "unplanned review" to
determine the "safety and treatment benefit-risk ratio" of all the
3,234 patients who had been enrolled in the study to date.  As a
result, Regado ceased enrolling patients in the study and
announced that it would suspend the trial until the review was
complete.

On this news, Regado stock fell $3.95, or over 58%, on unusually
heavy volume, to close at $2.81 on July 3, 2014.

On July 9, 2014, after the market closed, the Company announced
that, further to their decision to voluntarily pause enrollment in
the REG1 study, the FDA informed the Company that a clinical hold
has been placed on all patient enrollment and dosing in the
ongoing Phase 3 trial.

On this news, Regado stock fell $0.20, or over 7%, on unusually
heavy volume, in intraday trading on July 10.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


RESTAURANT.COM INC: Judge Tosses Consumer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge
on July 10 again tossed a putative class action targeting
Restaurant.com Inc. over eatery certificates that the third-party
vendor sold online, ruling that a New Jersey Supreme Court
decision that state consumer contract protections cover intangible
property like the certificates shouldn't apply retroactively.
Deciding the case on remand from the Third Circuit, U.S. Judge
Joel A. Pisano found that the state Supreme Court's decision last
year interpreting the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act in an e-commerce setting created a new rule of law that
would "lead to gravely inequitable results if applied
retroactively" -- two critical factors that justify solely
applying a court's judgment to cases going forward.

Consumers failed to allege any actual losses and instead want
windfall damages and attorneys' fees under the TCCWNA,
Judge Pisano wrote in his 12-page opinion.  Meanwhile, the state
Supreme Court's "expansive" reading of the statute would impact
anyone who markets anything deemed intangible in the state,
according to the judge.

"Retroactive application could result in extraordinary statutory
penalties against unsuspecting companies without any consumers
actually suffering any ascertainable losses," the judge said.
"Prospective application will allow such businesses or people to
make the necessary adjustments to their contracts, notices,
warranties and signs to account for the fact that they are now
subject to the TCCWNA."

Judge Pisano originally dismissed the suit in 2010, finding that
the consumers had failed to mount viable claims under both the
TCCWNA and the state Consumer Fraud Act.  The plaintiffs accused
Restaurant.com of violating the consumer contracts law by
including a one-year expiration date on their certificates without
expressly indicating the provision is inapplicable in New Jersey.

On appeal, the Third Circuit asked the state Supreme Court to
consider the reach of the TCCWNA.  According to Judge Mary
Catherine Cuff's opinion in July for unanimous court, the
plaintiffs qualify as TCCWNA consumers because the certificates
represent property that's primarily for personal, family or
household purposes.  The certificates can also be considered
"consumer contracts" under the TCCWNA, and terms on the vouchers
amount to "notices" subject to the law, the court found.

With that decision in hand, the Third Circuit in November affirmed
the dismissal of the consumers' CFA claim but vacated the lower
court's decision on their TCCWNA allegations.  Restaurant.com
filed its now successful motion to dismiss the suit later that
month.

On July 10, Judge Pisano said the New Jersey Supreme Court was
clearly tackling a matter of first impression.  The consumers'
argument that intangible property falls within the TCCWNA's
umbrella wasn't based on any kind of authority, and even the state
high court suggested that it was covering new ground.

"The certificates or coupons at issue are the product of
commercial ventures enabled by technology that developed after the
Legislature adopted the TCCWNA," the court said in a passage that
Pisano cited.  "We do not know whether the Legislature
specifically envisioned certificates or coupons like the ones
Restaurant.com offers [to fall within the TCCWNA] and meant to
impose a $100 penalty per occurrence in such cases."

Restaurant.com relied on a plausible interpretation of the law
that has since been rendered incorrect, according to Pisano.

An attorney for Restaurant.com welcomed the decision.

"This case was never about harm to consumers, but windfall
statutory damages," Michael R. McDonald of Gibbons PC said.  "The
court here properly determined that considerations of fairness and
justice strongly favor prospective application of a new rule of
law."

Representing the consumers, attorney Henry P. Wolfe --
hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net -- of The Wolf Law Firm made clear that
they plan to appeal.  He called the ruling erroneous and expressed
hope that the Third Circuit would reverse.

Restaurant.com is represented by Michael R. McDonald --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- and Damian V. Santomauro --
dsantomauro@gibbonslaw.com -- of Gibbons PC.

The consumers are represented by Bruce D. Greenberg --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- and Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC; Andrew
R. Wolf, Henry P. Wolfe; and Elliot M. Gardner of The Wolf Law
Firm LLC, and Christopher J. McGinn.

The case is Shelton et al v. Restaurant.com Inc., case number 10-
cv-824 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $2.1MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Barker, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Schnuck Markets appears to have settled some of the legal
challenges stemming from a massive data breach that started in the
winter of 2012.

A settlement agreement has been filed in St. Louis Circuit Court
in a class action suit on behalf of customers who suffered from
the breach that started in December 2012 and ran through March
2013.  The incident exposed an estimated 2.4 million credit and
debit cards.

The $2.1 million settlement, which still needs final court
approval, would pay affected customers for a variety of
inconveniences.  Up to $200 in out-of-pocket expenses for things
like unreimbursed bank fees, long distance and cellphone charges
incurred while dealing with the fallout, credit monitoring
services and time spent working with banks, merchants and
creditors.  Each customer who dealt with a fraudulent charge that
was later reimbursed can receive $10 for each credit or debit card
affected.

The settlement also will pay up to $10,000 to victims who actually
lost money because of the breach.  The settlement also calls for
the class action attorneys to be paid up to $635,000, plus
expenses.

Judge David Dowd has set a final approval hearing for Jan. 13,
2015.

A Schnucks spokesman said he could not discuss the case, beyond
the details of the settlement.

A related federal case has been on hold while awaiting resolution
of the Missouri case. U.S. District Judge John Ross stayed that
case again on July 11.  Documents suggest the federal case will
proceed if affected Schnucks customers choose not to take part in
the settlement that's been hammered out.

The grocer also has ongoing litigation against two payment
processing companies -- First Data Merchant Data Services Corp.
and Citicorp Payment Services Inc. -- in federal court here.
According to court documents, Schnucks is accusing the firms of
withholding too much money from the grocer to cover costs related
to the breach.


SERVICES EMPLOYEES: Wins Truck Drivers' Class Action Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
KBR on July 11 disclosed that the company and its affiliate,
Services Employees International, Inc., won a class action
arbitration alleging that the company had underpaid thousands of
truck drivers supporting the military effort in Iraq.

The ruling, issued by Arbitrator Michael Loeb, Esq, acknowledges
KBR routinely, and properly, enforced its written timekeeping
policy whereby employees "record all time worked, and work all
time recorded."  And, despite the various allegations asserted,
the payroll records made it clear that there was no class-wide
policy to require under-reporting of hours worked.

The arbitration was filed in November 2007, and Arbitrator Loeb
certified a class of approximately 7,000 current and former truck
drivers in 2011.   The plaintiffs alleged that between 2003 and
2010, KBR maintained a policy to deny truck drivers stationed in
Iraq compensation for all overtime hours worked.  The arbitration
hearing took place in September and October of last year with
closing arguments in February of this year.

"KBR is pleased, but not surprised, by the decision," said
Andrew Farley, KBR Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
"This ruling confirms that KBR's policy and practice was to
require accurate time recording and pay these drivers for all
hours actually worked."

                           About KBR

KBR -- http://www.kbr.com-- is a global engineering, construction
and services company supporting the energy, hydrocarbons, power,
industrial, civil infrastructure, minerals, government services
and commercial markets.


SMARTHEAT INC: Discovery to Proceed in Federal Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SmartHeat Inc., reported that discovery is now proceeding in the
putative class action lawsuit filed against the Company alleging
violations of the federal securities law claims and false
disclosure relating to sales, which was denied by the Court on
March 17, 2014, without prejudice, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on June 26, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014.

The Company states: "On August 31, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit, Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purported
to allege federal securities law claims against the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding. A lead plaintiff was
appointed and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013,
by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver
Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they
were not officers of the Company during the alleged class period.
A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the
caption  Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,
Smartheat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants. The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales. On May 8, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the
court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification, without prejudice. Discovery is now proceeding. The
pleadings and court orders are publicly available. We intend to
vigorously defend this action, as we believe the allegations
against us are without merit."

SmartHeat Inc. (SmartHeat) is a designer, manufacturer and seller
of clean technology plate heat exchangers (PHE), heat pumps (HPs)
and related systems marketed principally in the People's Republic
of China (PRC). The Company operates in two segments: plate
heating equipment, meters and related products; and heat pumps and
related products. Its subsidiaries' products are used in the
industrial, residential and commercial markets to improve energy
utilization and efficiencies, and to reduce pollution by reducing
the need for coal-fired boilers. Its subsidiaries design,
manufacture, sell and service PHEs, PHE Units, which combine PHEs
with various pumps, temperature sensors, valves and automated
control systems in systems custom designed by its in-house
engineers, heat meters and heat pumps for use in commercial and
residential buildings.


SONY CORPORATION: Defendant in Customer Identity Theft Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 20-F filed on June 26, 2014, with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2014,
Sony Corporation disclosed that it has been named in a number of
purported class actions alleging customer identity theft issues or
misuse of credit cards from such cyber-attacks in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States.

In May 2011, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Electronics
Inc., received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") Antitrust Division seeking information about its secondary
batteries business. Sony understands that the DOJ, the European
Commission and certain other governmental agencies outside the
United States also opened investigations of competition in the
secondary batteries market. The DOJ has notified Sony that it has
closed its investigation, but the European Commission and one
other agency continue to investigate. A number of direct and
indirect purchaser class action lawsuits have been filed in
certain jurisdictions, including the United States, in which the
plaintiffs allege that Sony Corporation and certain of its
subsidiaries violated antitrust laws and seek recovery of damages
and other remedies. Based on the stage of these proceedings, it is
not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible
loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements or other resolution of all of these matters.

Beginning in early 2011, the network services of
PlayStation(R)Network, Qriocity (TM), Sony Online Entertainment
LLC and websites of other subsidiaries came under cyber-attack. As
of June 26, 2014, Sony has not received any confirmed reports of
customer identity theft issues or misuse of credit cards from such
cyber-attacks. However, in connection with certain of these
matters, Sony has received inquiries from authorities in a number
of jurisdictions, including formal and/or informal requests for
information from Attorneys General from a number of states in the
United States. Additionally, Sony Corporation and/or certain of
its subsidiaries have been named in a number of purported class
actions in certain jurisdictions, including the United States. A
proposed settlement of the U.S. class action suits has been
submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The settlement of
a set of non-U.S. class actions has received court approval, and
one non-U.S. class action suit remains pending. Based on the stage
of these inquiries and proceedings, it is not possible to estimate
the amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might
result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution of
all of these matters.

In October 2009, Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Optiarc
America Inc., received a subpoena from the DOJ seeking information
about its optical disk drive business. Sony understands that the
European Commission and certain other governmental agencies
outside the United States also opened investigations of
competition in the optical disk drives market. The DOJ has
notified Sony that it has closed its investigation, and Sony
understands that the investigations by several other agencies have
now ended, but the European Commission and one other agency
continue to investigate. A number of direct and indirect purchaser
lawsuits, including class actions, have been filed in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States, in which the
plaintiffs allege that Sony Corporation and certain of its
subsidiaries violated antitrust laws and seek recovery of damages
and other remedies. Based on the stage of these proceedings, it is
not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of possible
loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements or other resolution of all of these matters.

In November 2013, trial was set for September 2014 on a complaint
by a former customer of Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony
Electronics Inc., seeking recovery in connection with the former
customer's bankruptcy filing. Based on the stage of this
proceeding and information currently available, Sony believes that
any reasonably possible loss would not have a material impact on
Sony's results of operations and financial position.

In addition, Sony Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries are
defendants or otherwise involved in other pending legal and
regulatory proceedings. However, based upon the information
currently available, Sony believes that the outcome from such
legal and regulatory proceedings would not have a material impact
on Sony's results of operations and financial position.

Sony Corporation is engaged in the operation of imaging products
and solution (IP&S), game, mobile products and communication
(MP&C), home entertainment and sound (HE&S), device, movie, music,
financial and other business. IP&S segment provides digital
imaging products and professional solutions. Game segment produces
and distributes consumer game machines and software. MP&C segment
operates mobile communication and personal mobile product
business. HE&S segment operates television business, video and
audio business. Device segment operates semiconductor business and
component business. Movie segment designs, produces, distribution
and broadcasts movies and television programs. Music segment
produces and distributes music software and animation products.
Finance segment operates insurance and banking business. On July
1, 2014, it transferred Sony Mobile Communications AB to Sony
Mobile Communications Inc. On July 1, 2014, it transferred a part
of PC operation to VJ Corporation.


STAAR SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of STAAR
Surgical Company on July 10 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of STAAR securities between February 27, 2013 and
June 30, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact us at (310) 201-9150, or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.  If you inquire
by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number
and number of shares purchased.

STAAR, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufactures and sells implantable lenses for the eye and delivery
systems to deliver lenses into the eye.  The Complaint alleges
that STAAR's Monrovia, California, manufacturing facility lacked
adequate methodologies and facilities for the manufacture,
packing, storage and installation of the Company's implantable
lenses, lacked adequate procedures for documenting complaints,
sterility testing and maintaining required records, and as a
result was not in conformity with current good manufacturing
practice requirements at all relevant times.

On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a
Warning Letter, dated May 21, 2014, concerning an inspection of
STAAR's Monrovia facility from February 10, 2014 to March 21,
2014.  The FDA letter noted several regulatory violations at the
facility and stated that, among other things, "the methods used
in, or the facilities or controls used for" manufacture, packing,
storage or installation of the Company's implantable lenses are
"not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice
requirements."  The FDA further advised STAAR that "failure to
promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action
being initiated by the FDA without further notice."

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than September 8, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action,
or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (646)
539-8980, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


SUNRISE MEDICAL: "Purizaga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladycla Ver Purizaga v. Sunrise Medical, PC, Sergio Martinez,
MD, and Lucelida ("Lucy") Osorio, Case No. 1:14-cv-04238
(E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sunrise Medical, PC, is a medical services provider located at 40-
39 Junction Boulevard, Corona, New York 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Catherine Elizabeth Anderson, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
      11 Broadway, Suite 2150
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 847-8315
      E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com


SYMANTEC CORP: September 8 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll on July 10 issued a statement
regarding the class action titled Khoday et al., v. Symantec
Corp., et al.(D. Minn.).

To consumers who purchased Extended Download Service ("EDS") for
Norton products or Norton Download Insurance ("NDI") between
January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011.

Consumers who purchased EDS and NDI for their Norton software have
sued Defendants, alleging that Defendants a) misrepresented that
EDS and NDI were necessary if a customer wanted to redownload
their software more than 60 days after purchase; and b) failed to
disclose that customers could redownload their Norton software for
free on Defendants' own websites or buy EDS later if needed.

The Court has determined that this lawsuit can proceed as a class
action on behalf of the following group of persons (the Class):
All persons in the United States who purchased Extended Download
Service ("EDS") for Norton products or Norton Download Insurance
("NDI") between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011 (the "Class
Period").

If you are included in the above definition, you are included in
the Class unless you exclude yourself.  If you are unsure whether
you are included in the Class, you can write the lawyers
representing the Class by letter; their contact information is
listed below.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOU MUST CHOOSE WHETHER TO
REMAIN IN THE CLASS OR OPT OUT.

What is this lawsuit about?

This lawsuit alleges that Defendants violated consumer protection
laws and the common law -- specifically, that Digital River
violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, and that Symantec
violated California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, by failing to disclose to Class members that free
alternative methods to redownload purchased software existed.
Defendants have denied the claims in this lawsuit and maintain
that Plaintiffs and Class members are not entitled to monetary
relief.

What are my options? You have two options if you are a member of
the Class:

Option #1:  Remain in the Class.   If you are included in the
Class you do not need to do anything to remain a member of the
Class.  If you remain a member of the Class and the Court awards
monetary benefits against either Defendant or Defendants settle
these claims, you will share in any monetary benefits awarded to
the Class.  If you stay in the Class and the Class Representatives
obtain money either as a result of a trial or a settlement, Class
members will be notified about how to apply for a share (or how to
ask to be excluded from any settlement, if the Court permits a
second period of exclusion).  If you remain part of the Class, you
will be legally bound by all of the Orders the Court issues and
judgments the Court makes in this class action, and you will not
be able to sue Symantec or Digital River in a separate lawsuit
about the same claims in this lawsuit.

Option #2:  Exclude Yourself.  Excluding yourself -- sometimes
called "opting out" -- from the Class means that you will not
participate in the Class.  If the Class is successful at trial or
obtains a settlement, you will not receive any money or benefits
from the lawsuit.  Likewise, you will not be legally bound by the
Court's judgments in this class action and will be able to pursue
your own separate lawsuit for these claims.  To exclude yourself
from the Class, you must send a letter stating that you want to be
excluded from Khoday v. Symantec, et al. to Class Counsel.  You
must be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and
signature.  You must mail your exclusion request so that it is
postmarked no later than September 8, 2014.

Who represents the Class?

The Court has appointed the following law firms to serve as the
attorneys for the Class:

Lead Counsel for the Class:
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL P.L.L.C.
Andrew N. Friedman
Douglas J. McNamara
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, East Tower
Washington, D.C.  20005-3964

THE WENTZ LAW FIRM
Richard Wentz
Jean Wentz
33 Via Ricardo
Newbury Park, CA  91320

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
Karen Hanson Riebel
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf
100 Washington Avenue South
Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401

McLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
Lee S. Shalov
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10016

You have the right to hire your own attorney (at your own
expense), but if you remain in the Class, you are not required to
hire a separate attorney.

How do I get more information? This is only a summary of this
lawsuit and your rights as a potential Class member.

If you would like additional information, you may obtain case
information at DownloadInsuranceClassAction.com or by calling 1
(855) 382-6395.  You may also obtain additional information
regarding this lawsuit by reviewing the papers on file in this
litigation, which may be inspected at the Office of the Clerk of
Court, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
United States Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 202,
Minneapolis, MN 55415 during business hours (or may be accessed
online for a fee by obtaining a password at www.uscourts.gov).

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: July 10, 2014


TOWER LEGAL: "Vassallo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Ross Vassallo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tower Legal Staffing, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05155
(S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid straight time
and overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tower Legal Staffing, Inc., provides attorneys and paralegals on a
contract and direct-hire basis to law firms and corporate law
departments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
      Charles E. Joseph, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10279
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548


VIEGA LLC: Settles Class Action Over Defective Brass Fittings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Viega LLC on July 11 disclosed that a settlement has been reached
in a class action about certain plumbing fittings, components and
sub-components ("Viega Brass Fittings" i.e., potable water
plumbing system fittings or other components and sub-components
used in potable water plumbing systems made from UNS C3600, UNS
C37700, UNS C36500 brass, or similar copper alloys with 15+% zinc
content manufactured and/or distributed by Viega or its
affiliates).  Plaintiffs and others allege the fittings may fail
or have an impeded "useful life."  Viega denies all claims made in
the lawsuit and maintains that Viega Brass Fittings are not
defective.  The Court has not decided who is right.  The parties
agreed to the Settlement to end the litigation.  This Settlement
augments a prior proposed settlement and enhances benefits to
eligible claimants.

You are included in the Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if
you are a Person that owns or owned a structure that contains or
contained Viega Brass Fittings or are such Person's spouse, joint
owner, heir, executor, administrator, mortgagee, tenant, creditor,
lender, predecessor, successor, subsequent owner or occupant,
lessee, trust and trustee, attorney, agent, assignee or have
standing to make a claim for a Settlement Class Member.
Settlement Class Members, and certain affiliated/related parties,
who own or have owned buildings, homes, residences or any other
structures located in Clark County, Nevada are also members of the
"Clark County Subclass."  Settlement Class Members who currently
own a residential property located in AR, AZ, CA, DE, HI, KS, LA,
NV, NH, OK, WV and WY, are also included in the "Useful Life
Subclass."  Insurance carriers are members of the Settlement Class
or Clark County Subclass if their insureds fall within these
categories and the carriers paid claims for a leak or occlusion
before June 20, 2014.  Persons who seek contribution or indemnity
from Viega on past settlement of, or judgments on, claims with
Settlement Class Members or other subclass members are members of
the Settlement Class or respective subclass(es), if they paid
those settlements or judgments before June 20, 2014.  Subrogated
insurance carriers or people seeking contribution or indemnity
from Viega from the vesting of legal rights occurring after
June 20, 2014, are not Settlement Class Members or members of any
subclass, but only succeed to rights of the relevant Settlement
Class Member or subclass member.

The Los Angeles Superior Court will hold a hearing in this case,
Verdejo v. Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc., Case No. BC448383, on
September 17, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve
the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate; attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses; and a payment of $5,000 per home to the
Plaintiffs.  These payments will not reduce the amount of benefits
available to the Settlement Class.

Those included in the Settlement Class have legal rights and
options, such as excluding themselves from or objecting to the
Settlement.  More information is in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action available at
www.VerdejoSettlement.com.


XEROX CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in "Hill" Suit Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY HILL, Plaintiff, v. XEROX CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO.
C12-0717-JCC, (W.D. Wash.) is before the Court on Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendants' Motion Requesting
Permission to File Surreply, the parties' motions to strike, and
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

In an order dated July 10, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/pay6a3from Leagle.com, District Judge John C.
Coughenour denied the motion for partial summary judgment; denied
the motion to file surreply; granted in part the motions to
strike; and granted in part the motion for class certification.

The parties have agreed that the settlement in Sump v. ACS bars
some claims. The Plaintiff argued that no Sump class member
released any claims after June 4, 2010, so there is therefore no
overlap with her proposed class, while the Defendants argued that
claims were not released until September 2010.

Judge Coughenour directed the parties to file the settlement
agreement under seal and either (1) jointly file a stipulation
defining a class that accounts for the Sump settlement; or (2) in
the absence of any agreement, each file a brief not to exceed
three pages explaining how the proposed class should account for
the Sump settlement. This should be completed by August 1, 2014.

Tiffany Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Foster Johnson --
djohnson@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC, Jon
Walker MacLeod -- jwm@jwmacleodlaw.com -- MACLEOD LLC, Marc C Cote
-- mcote@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC &
Toby James Marshall -- tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC.

LiveBridge Inc, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Patrick M Madden -- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP,
Ryan Drew Redekopp -- ryan.redekopp@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP &
Todd L Nunn -- todd.nunn@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.

Affiliated Computer Services Inc, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Patrick M Madden, K&L GATES LLP, Ryan
Drew Redekopp, K&L GATES LLP & Todd L Nunn, K&L GATES LLP.

Affiliated Computer Services LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Patrick M Madden, K&L GATES
LLP, Ryan Drew Redekopp, K&L GATES LLP & Todd L Nunn, K&L GATES
LLP.

Xerox Business Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel P
Hurley -- daniel.hurley@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Patrick M
Madden, K&L GATES LLP & Todd L Nunn, K&L GATES LLP.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Chewies Cookies Due to Tree Nuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling "Chocolate Chewies" produced and
sold in the Hyannis, Massachusetts location due to an undeclared
tree nut allergen.  The product was sold in the store between
Sunday, July 13, 2014 and Friday, July 18, 2014 in clear,
clamshell packaging and has a Use By date of: 7/18/14.

The chewies contain walnuts as an ingredient. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to tree nuts run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
Hyannis may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call
617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *